It was...until we developed other means of cooking our food and warming our homes that don't require a wood-burning fire. Electricity, natural gas, etc. In most first-world environments, fires are for entertainment purposes only, and therefore not essential anymore.

I always wonder if the person that writes these things is doing so on a solar powered type writer or using a phone that has a carbon footprint larger than any series of campfires (save those that start wildfires) would ever create. If we really want to stop wildfires, we'd be better off stopping smoking as statistically wise, at least here in Canada, more wildfires are started by discarded cigarette butts than any other means. So let's outlaw smoking, oh wait we probably can't because our government just legalized smoking marijuana. So as long as smoking is legal, I'll continue to enjoy my campfires in a responsible way thank you very much.

I love camping and I love a good campfire. We primarily camp in forest service campgrounds that are equipped with forest service fire rings. We've had a good wet winter and spring and early summer so as of right now there are no restrictions in place. We have camped with restrictions in place with no fire, and that's fine too...but if I am allowed to have a campfire, I do.

It's usually something we get going in the early evening before dinner and then the kids can roast their marshmallows over the fire afterwards. We typically let it start to die once it gets dark and after the kids are in bed so we can just sit and enjoy the night sky and the stars. I like having a small morning fire as well.

You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

Wow, that's jumping to a conclusion. No what I don't like are people who claim to be so concerned with the environment that they pen posts on the devastating effects of a really fun past time, calling out those who do it and suggesting we should end the practice, meanwhile they themselves are really hypocritical in that their environment destructing footprint is often as bad or worse, but they don't advocate for stopping all of the things they love, they instead focus on things other people do. Willie Nelson for example claims to be a climate change and environment guru, yet at a show in Alberta, he left multiple diesel buses running for an entire day just so that he could keep them climate controlled for his comfort. David Suzuki who advocates for the environment, yet jet sets around the world in private jets seems a bit hypocritical to me. Etc........

I'm totally against forest fires, but most up here in Canada any ways aren't caused by some irresponsible camper having a fire in the evening. They are caused by someone being negligent with other products, such as cigarettes. Thus my second point was that if you're going to ban something, let's start by banning the thing that actually causes these, and not just the first thing that pops into the authors mind.

You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

Wow, that's jumping to a conclusion. No what I don't like are people who claim to be so concerned with the environment that they pen posts on the devastating effects of a really fun past time, calling out those who do it and suggesting we should end the practice, meanwhile they themselves are really hypocritical in that their environment destructing footprint is often as bad or worse, but they don't advocate for stopping all of the things they love, they instead focus on things other people do. Willie Nelson for example claims to be a climate change and environment guru, yet at a show in Alberta, he left multiple diesel buses running for an entire day just so that he could keep them climate controlled for his comfort. David Suzuki who advocates for the environment, yet jet sets around the world in private jets seems a bit hypocritical to me. Etc........

I'm totally against forest fires, but most up here in Canada any ways aren't caused by some irresponsible camper having a fire in the evening. They are caused by someone being negligent with other products, such as cigarettes. Thus my second point was that if you're going to ban something, let's start by banning the thing that actually causes these, and not just the first thing that pops into the authors mind.

The biggest cause of forest fires in my neck of the woods is lightening. We usually have crazy thunderstorm monsoons starting in July and going through August, but in the mountains at 9,000+ ft it's not uncommon to have thunderstorms roll through regardless of the season. In all of my years of camping I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've camped and we didn't have a thunderstorm roll through or at least skirt us.

I agree with those who want to keep their camp fires: Put stiffer penalties in place for those who are careless with their campfires (and equip the forest service so that they can better enforce those penalties), put limits or bans during extremely dry periods as common sense would indicate, provide better education for safe and responsible camp fires, but don't be outlawing them out right.

You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

Makes sense to me.

Pareto in a practical application.

Concern over campfire and not cigarettes or the power plant shows a concern of optics over reality.

No one smokes in my home, and it'll illegal indoors in public places, even within 25 get off a door. Cigarettes don't affect the air quality here. Smoke from wild fires prevents is from seeing things a mile away during August every year.

I agree with those who want to keep their camp fires: Put stiffer penalties in place for those who are careless with their campfires (and equip the forest service so that they can better enforce those penalties), put limits or bans during extremely dry periods as common sense would indicate, provide better education for safe and responsible camp fires, but don't be outlawing them out right.

We never find out who started many of the human-caused fires. Satellite images show the Diamond Creek fire was started in a wilderness camp. Nobody keeps records of who hiked what trail what day or where they slept. That fire burned 150,000 acres and stretched into Canada.

You think somebody who doesn't like forest fires shouldn't use a computer? And that makes sense to you?

Makes sense to me.

Pareto in a practical application.

Concern over campfire and not cigarettes or the power plant shows a concern of optics over reality.

No one smokes in my home, and it'll illegal indoors in public places, even within 25 get off a door. Cigarettes don't affect the air quality here. Smoke from wild fires prevents is from seeing things a mile away during August every year.

But that's not what anyone is saying. We are saying that the 100,000+ acre fire is started more often by discarded cigarette butts or by in another posters augment, lightning. So banning campfires is going to do little to resolve the issue. And if the issue is big enough, then we need to ban all things that cause this, not just one or two that are something the author feels he can do without. Stay on point and stop trying to move the discussion to fit your argument.

I agree with those who want to keep their camp fires: Put stiffer penalties in place for those who are careless with their campfires (and equip the forest service so that they can better enforce those penalties), put limits or bans during extremely dry periods as common sense would indicate, provide better education for safe and responsible camp fires, but don't be outlawing them out right.

We never find out who started many of the human-caused fires. Satellite images show the Diamond Creek fire was started in a wilderness camp. Nobody keeps records of who hiked what trail what day or where they slept. That fire burned 150,000 acres and stretched into Canada.

Exactly, so jumping to the conclusion it was started by someone who was burning a campfire is also maybe not correct. Could have been someone left a shiny metallic object that was pointed in the direction of some dried brush. Could have been as per my point, a discarded cigarette, cigar, dubie, etc. Maybe someone was setting off firecrackers, who knows. Jumping to a conclusion and taking away someones right to do something is always wrong.

Forest fires are on the rise largely due to increased burdensome regulations, so undergrowth is more prominent. Harvesting is not as frequent and creation of reservoirs is an impossibility. Trees were once harvested on a 30-50 year cycle and this is down 60%.

Review of objective evidence suggests that forest fires will rise regardless, but campfires make for a nice scapegoat.

One commonality among all humans is that we are almost always concerned with the wrong things.

Forest fires are on the rise largely due to increased burdensome regulations, so undergrowth is more prominent. Harvesting is not as frequent and creation of reservoirs is an impossibility. Trees were once harvested on a 30-50 year cycle and this is down 60%.

Review of objective evidence suggests that forest fires will rise regardless, but campfires make for a nice scapegoat.

One commonality among all humans is that we are almost always concerned with the wrong things.

^^agreed

not to mention the fact that we're now finding out that the forest needs the fires and are actually good for the ecosystem